How long does it take to crush a federal employee?

The federal workforce has been used as a political football for decades. Feds know
the drill: A politician from either party needs to win points with the folks back
home on the issue of cutting government. S/he makes sweeping over-generalizations
about federal pay, federal employee performance or competence, unions or any one
of a hundred other issues, and neatly avoids any admission of complicity in the
problem. The "unelected nameless, faceless bureaucrats" are always to blame. If
only they could be forced to work and the bad ones fired, our government's
problems would vanish, the sun would shine and there would be peace in the world.

Photo courtesy of Jeff Neal

The fed-bashing has risen to unprecedented levels in recent years. Let's take an
inventory. It has been 43 months (January 2010) since federal employees have
received a general pay raise. Just this week the House voted to allow senior
executives to be suspended without pay when accused of wrongdoing. Not found
guilty of wrongdoing — just accused. They voted to allow anyone to record
any
conversation with a federal employee without the employee's consent. It isn't just
one party either. A bipartisan majority voted to pass the "Stop Playing on
Citizen's Cash Act" to restrict conference spending. Other bills are pending to
cripple federal unions, deny feds' bonuses for outstanding performance, cut federal
retirement benefits and more.

While that kind of rhetoric may be useful in politics, it is destructive for
governance and the people who make up our government. These are not nameless,
faceless bureaucrats. They are people. They have names. They have faces. They
have families, feelings, hopes and dreams. They also have vital skills the
government needs to operate effectively. More important for the government as an
employer — they have choices and are free to leave. How long will it take
before we crush the federal workforce? What happens if we do?

The damage has started already. Federal retirements are up and continuing to rise.
Employee responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey are showing increasing
unhappiness. Virtually every question related to morale and engagement showed a
decline from 2011 to 2012. Every chief human capital officer I've spoken with
believes the numbers will be lower — much lower — in the next round of
the survey.

HR offices are reporting more difficulty in recruiting and hiring talent. How easy
is it to recruit a new star employee when all you can offer as a motivator is the
opportunity to serve and do interesting work? No pay raises and constant bashing
by politicians are not exactly strong recruiting incentives. The potential damage
is compounded by the fact that morale-induced turnover tends to drive the highest
performers out of organizations. They are typically the most marketable and most
able to take advantage of new opportunities. Even if you believe government is too
big and federal employees are overpaid, is this a good approach to reducing its
size? I have never found a credible leader who believes employee abuse is a
legitimate management tool.

When I was HR director for the Defense Logistics Agency, we did extensive in-depth
analysis of our employee survey data. One finding that stuck with me was how long
it took new hires in a bad environment to become disillusioned with their jobs.
One field office that had particularly bad ratings had great feedback from
employees for the first two years. After that, the ratings dropped like a rock.
Based on that admittedly limited data point, it appears it takes two years to
crush an employee. After that, the damage becomes more difficult to repair. As the
attitudes become more ingrained, they are harder to change. We cannot simply start
giving pay raises again and stop bashing the workforce and expect everything to be
right with the world again.

Study after study shows the corrosive effects of poor morale in the workplace.
Productivity goes down, leave use goes up, discretionary effort goes down, and
attention to detail is often non-existent. In her book "Good
Company," author
Laurie Bassi says, "The trademark of a worthy employer is the ability to
masterfully manage the tension between employees as costs and employees as
assets." I think that is a great standard — one that the federal government
is failing to meet. The political battles today completely disregard the employees
as assets and go beyond treating them as costs to the point where they are pawns
in a political chess game. If we truly want to have a government that functions
efficiently and effectively, it is time for the fed bashing to stop. Have the
debates regarding the power and reach of government, but stop treating the federal
workforce as though they are the problem. They are not, and they can only take so
much before their spirit, dedication and willingness to serve are crushed beyond
repair.

This column was originally published on Jeff Neal's blog, ChiefHRO.com and was
republished here with permission from the author. Copyright 2013 by Jeff Neal. All
rights reserved.

Jeff Neal is senior vice president for ICF International, where he leads
the Organizational Research, Learning and Performance practice. Before coming to
ICF, Neal was the chief human capital officer at the Department of Homeland
Security and the chief human resources officer at the Defense Logistics Agency.